Why are new cars even having issues with burning oil? The gasoline engine has been around for 100 years and it's always been the same deal, a piston goes in a cylinder with piston rings around it. Why there is so much variation in the amount of oil they burn is beyond me.

I believe a lot of CVT's are outsourced from an Asian company I can't recall the name of. Nissan uses them, as did Jeep for a while. I believe those are quite good, CVT's are their specialty. I don't know if Subie's CVT's are theirs or not though.

Subaru only manufactures their own manual transmissions. The manufacture of Subaru's automatic transmissions has always been outsourced, and always from JATCO, from what I understand. JATCO is a spin-off subsidiary of Nissan (with Mitsubishi owning a minority interest). This relationship is understandable as Nissan once owned controlling interest in Subaru. The CVT is a Subaru engineered JATCO manufactured transmission and is a design that is unique to Subaru. You guys had better get used to CVTs. In 10 years ALL the "automatics" will either be CVTs or automated manuals. Personally, I would rather have a CVT than an automated manual.

That is what you believe. I don't and believe that Subaru produces their own CVT. I am willing to be convinced other wise, though. Any links to back up your assertion that the Subaru designed it and JATCO produces it?

Audi, Honda, Hyundai, Subaru, and Toyota all make their own CVTs. Nissan owns a controlling interest in JATCO, the firm that supplies 49 percent of the world’s gear-free transmissions to Chrysler, GM, Mi­tsu­bishi, and Suzuki. In addition, nearly half of Nissan’s current U.S. models offer a JATCO-supplied CVT.

Why are new cars even having issues with burning oil? The gasoline engine has been around for 100 years and it's always been the same deal, a piston goes in a cylinder with piston rings around it. Why there is so much variation in the amount of oil they burn is beyond me.

Low tension piston rings that were designed and implemented to reduce parasitic drag and increase fuel economy.

Why are new cars even having issues with burning oil? The gasoline engine has been around for 100 years and it's always been the same deal, a piston goes in a cylinder with piston rings around it. Why there is so much variation in the amount of oil they burn is beyond me.

Because even if the piston engine is around for 500 years, it will ALWAYS burn some quantity of oil (unless we find a way to make oil-less lubrication practical for engines). The variation comes from variations in engine design, ring design, piston design, sufrace finish, the way the engine was broken in by the individual owner, and (often forgotten) PCV system design- which can account for way more oil consumption than the rings. Then there's consumption past the valve guides, too.

That is what you believe. I don't and believe that Subaru produces their own CVT. I am willing to be convinced other wise, though. Any links to back up your assertion that the Subaru designed it and JATCO produces it?

I don't have a link, but notice in everything you read that Subaru does not claim that they actually manufacture the transmission. I have a long time friend that is a powertrain technician at one of the local Subaru dealers. He regularly attends service schools to get hands-on training. He told me that, like ALL other Subaru automatic transmissions, the CVT IS manufactured by JATCO. He also told me that Subaru's engineering of the transmission has made it VERY different than JATCO's other CVTs. This could be either a good or bad thing regarding it's reliability and long term durability as compared to JATCO's other CVTs. Only time will tell.

Subaru only manufactures their own manual transmissions. The manufacture of Subaru's automatic transmissions has always been outsourced, and always from JATCO, from what I understand. JATCO is a spin-off subsidiary of Nissan (with Mitsubishi owning a minority interest). This relationship is understandable as Nissan once owned controlling interest in Subaru. The CVT is a Subaru engineered JATCO manufactured transmission and is a design that is unique to Subaru. You guys had better get used to CVTs. In 10 years ALL the "automatics" will either be CVTs or automated manuals. Personally, I would rather have a CVT than an automated manual.

Post a credible source for this claim and you will be the MAN.

I hear you that it's extremely odd Fuji Heavy is in the CVT making business, but I've never seen info to support it's a JATCO unit, and I've been following this very topic for ~3yrs.

Yes, I know the conventional Subaru automatics like the 4EAT were Jatco sourced. The CVTs is anyone's guess.

Actually, this whole CVT transmission thing involves a complicated web of different companies. Subaru HAS manufactured their own CVTs, but only for mini-micro cars, beginning with the Justy in 1984. In the early 2000's FHI (Subaru) formed a 50/50 partnership in a CVT transmission joint venture with, you guessed it, JATCO. JATCO is jointly owned by Nissan (and Renault, because Renault owns controlling interest in Nissan), Mitsubishi, and Suzuki. So, FHI is actually partnered with ALL of these other companies. This joint venture was specifically set up to share technology, engineer, develop, manufacture, and market CVT automatic transmissions. So, looking at it this way, one can say that Subaru does actually manufacture their own CVTs. But, the jointly owned Japanese manufacturing facility only supplies CVTs for the mini-micro cars sold in that part of the world. The larger CVTs used here are manufactured in a JATCO plant in Mexico, but it is a CVT design that is unique to Subaru. So, in a round about way, I guess one could say that Subaru manufactures their own CVT by virtue of the fact that they are partnered with JATCO.To top it all off, Toyota owns 19% of Subaru (which, by Japanese standards, gives Toyota controlling interest). Aisin Seiki (Toyotas transmission supplier) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Toyota. And, Toyota is occupying half of Subaru's Indiana assembly plant, building Camrys.All of these Japanese companies form tangled webs of partnerships, joint ventures, part ownerships, and cooperative agreements that would be considered illegal in the USA. It is all VERY confusing.

Interesting read! I wonder if any of this is visible on the car itself? I may make a trip to a Subaru dealer tomorrow to take a look to see if I can see any stamping.

If it is manufactured by JATCO, I can believe that it's a Subaru specific model. The ones that JATCO sells to Chevrolet, Jeep that are the same as in Nissan models are just as unreliable as the ones found in Nissans; if Subaru used the Nissan spec CVT, it would be pretty evident on the Subaru boards. I would be able to find a lot of reports of failed CVTs between 50K and 100K miles.

Having a component of your own design manufactured by another company is VERY common. In this day and age it is ALL about the COST of manufacturing a component. If a company can have a component produced for less by an outside supplier, they WILL farm it out.I would highly doubt that you will see JATCO marked on any part of Subaru's transmission.

Actually, this whole CVT transmission thing involves a complicated web of different companies. Subaru HAS manufactured their own CVTs, but only for mini-micro cars, beginning with the Justy in 1984. In the early 2000's FHI (Subaru) formed a 50/50 partnership in a CVT transmission joint venture with, you guessed it, JATCO. JATCO is jointly owned by Nissan (and Renault, because Renault owns controlling interest in Nissan), Mitsubishi, and Suzuki. So, FHI is actually partnered with ALL of these other companies. This joint venture was specifically set up to share technology, engineer, develop, manufacture, and market CVT automatic transmissions. So, looking at it this way, one can say that Subaru does actually manufacture their own CVTs. But, the jointly owned Japanese manufacturing facility only supplies CVTs for the mini-micro cars sold in that part of the world. The larger CVTs used here are manufactured in a JATCO plant in Mexico, but it is a CVT design that is unique to Subaru. So, in a round about way, I guess one could say that Subaru manufactures their own CVT by virtue of the fact that they are partnered with JATCO.To top it all off, Toyota owns 19% of Subaru (which, by Japanese standards, gives Toyota controlling interest). Aisin Seiki (Toyotas transmission supplier) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Toyota. And, Toyota is occupying half of Subaru's Indiana assembly plant, building Camrys.All of these Japanese companies form tangled webs of partnerships, joint ventures, part ownerships, and cooperative agreements that would be considered illegal in the USA. It is all VERY confusing.

Yes, I can see where you are coming from. The chain is not very clear.

I have to say that CVT's have improved in every way in the last 10 years. The early Murano CVT was no more reliable than an odyssey or caravan tranny. Or an early 4 speed auto. I still know more than a few people who had more than 100k on that first gent CVT doing soccer mom and weekend trailer pulling duty.

I only know 1 person who's murano CVT failed, and Nissan replaced it at 95k miles under warranty. I know another person who has close to 200k on a first gen murano with the OE CVT.

Our first Audi CVT lasted 12k miles, the replacement was fine.

Based on 04-06 CVT's I would never consider one, but...

Today's CVT's are much more reliable, and in some cases are more pleasant to drive than a traditional auto. The latest Nissan and Subaru offerings are great - especially compared to the early ones and the alternatives.

My concern is no longer drivability or reliability under normal use, my remaining concern is the same as my concern for many autos - being able to abuse it daily without it cooking itself. I don't expect to ever be doing amateur road racing in a CVT car, or an 8 or 9 speed auto car.

It's really too bad that Subaru is having these issues with the engines burning oil. The CVT is iffy. I really think that Subaru has the competition beat minus their questionable long term reliability.